might have drawn a different inference. To do otherwise is not
only contrary to the well-established principles that I have set
out above, it would involve this court in retrying the case. As
I believe shall become apparent below, there are many instances
where the appellants sought to have this court do that very
thing — retry the case.

[24] Finally, in terms of basic principles, conclusions are to bedrawn from the whole of the evidence. Each piece of evidence isnot to be viewed in isolation from the other evidence. Rather, theevidence in total is to be examined and weighed in reachinga conclusion. The importance of this principle is particularlyevident in cases such as this that involve a chain of events.Evidence from further down the chain may be important inreaching conclusions as to what happened higher up the chain.As the court said in R. v. Uhrig, [2012] O.J. No. 3011, 2012ONCA 470, at para. 13:When arguments are advanced, as here, that individual items of circum-stantial evidence are explicable on bases other than guilt, it is essential tokeep in mind that it is, after all, the cumulative effect of all the evidencethat must satisfy the standard of proof required of the Crown. Individualitems of evidence are links in the chain of ultimate proof: R. v. Morin, [1988]2 S.C.R. 345, at p. 361. Individual items of evidence are not to be examinedseparately and in isolation, then cast aside if the ultimate inference soughtfrom their accumulation does not follow from each individual item alone.It may be and very often is the case that items of evidence adduced by theCrown, examined separately, have not a very strong probative value. But allthe evidence has to be considered, each item in relation to the others and tothe evidence as a whole, and it is all of them taken together that may consti-tute a proper basis for a conviction: Cote v. The King (1941), 77 C.C.C. 75(S.C.C.), at p. 76.

IV: THE APPEALS[25] Before beginning my analysis of each of the appeals,I want to discuss what I consider to be the proper approach toappellate review of a tribunal’s decision. Appellate review doesnot require a minute examination of each piece of evidence or ofeach witness. It does not require a response to every argumentadvanced or every challenge made to the findings below. Nordoes it require a rewriting of the tribunal’s decision or are-examination of every aspect of the case. What is required is ageneral review of the process used by the tribunal in arriving atits factual findings, the analysis undertaken, the legal principlesapplied and the ultimate result reached, all with a view todetermining whether that result is a reasonable one. Appellatereview also does not turn on being able to point to a single errorin the tribunal’s reasons, or to one error of fact, unless that errorgoes to a core finding. It is not unheard of to find small individual